A Model of Caring in Organizations for Human Resource Development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although caring and an ethics of care have been part of the nursing and education literature for many years, it has seldom been the focus of research and models in the HRD literature which has tended to be dominated by masculine rationality and models that focus on performance. In this paper, I argue that caring represents an important positive attribute of organizations and that a model of caring provides an alternative to HRD models based on masculine rationality and a performance philosophy. Research on caring in nursing and education is reviewed along with calls for an ethic of care in HRD. This is followed by a review of research on caring in organizations which provides the basis for the development of a model of caring in organizations for HRD. The model demonstrates the relationships between caring from three sources or levels in an organization (the organization or business unit, management, and co-workers), a climate of care for employees, and positive employee outcomes. HRD care-enhancing interventions for developing caring in organizations are then discussed. The paper concludes with a consideration of the implications of a model of caring for HRD research and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it